In an interview with George Dobell for Cricinfo, the outgoing chief executive of the Professional Cricketers’ Association, Angus Porter, suggests that men’s cricket could adopt the points method used in women’s cricket where success in T20Is, ODIs and Tests is combined to decide the best side.

Not the worst idea of all time.

One of the major issues in the sport is that we frequently have tours where one nation overwhelmingly cares about one-dayers while the opposition only really cares about Tests. They’re not different. It’s all cricket. Why not draw the formats together, rather than pitting them against each other?

For all the talk about how we can revive the ailing longer format with day-night cricket and some form of Test championship, the truth is that cricket, in a broader sense, is in relatively rude health – so why not exploit that?

Cricket is all about diversity: different pitches, different weather, different approaches to batting, different types of bowler – and yes, even different durations of match. It makes perfect sense to treat it all as one.

You want every match to have context? How about if all those meaningless one-dayers and dead-rubber Tests contributed to establishing which is the best team at cricket?

A World Test Championship? So limiting. Why not have a World Cricket Championship? Everyone could get behind that.

I’ve got to admit, I’m one of those people who feels that T20 is a bastardisation of the game, and ODIs are part of the way there. So while I don’t mind the idea that a tour should have a points system, the idea that somehow 3 T20s are as important as a Test in determining cricket-goodness sets my teeth on edge.

I’m all in favour of a points-based system. I’d propose a setup whereby the total points available for all of the one-day matches/series is less than the number available for winning the test series. That should do it.

There’s no reason this couldn’t happen alongside the current ‘system’ – keep the Test rankings , the ODI rankings and the T20 rankings, but also have an overall ‘World Cricket Championship’ (maybe with some sort of second tier for associate nations, which could provide a criteria for Test status that isn’t entirely format-specific?)

Test series would still have to have their ‘special’ status though. At a minimum, The Ashes should still be The Ashes: I don’t think I could cope with a 2-1 Test series win being ‘overturned’ by a 3-0 T20 series loss, for example.

In other news, Vernon Philander’s back, at some point, and among the Saffer chat forums there are murmurings that ABdV’s back may be about to give out at some point, probably due to all that squatting at the wickets he’s now expected to do. In short, James Taylor is key to this series.

Three points for a test win, two for an ODI, and one for a T20, awarded for the first three matches in any series. Additional matches in certain series wouldn’t get points, but can be played anyway. In most cases this would mean that the points matches would also be live matches in the series, so there wouldn’t be a dead-rubber involved in a points win.

That’s eighteen points for each tour, with tests predominant but not overwhelming, and series still maintaining their status.

And absolutely not under any circumstances never never never bonus points. Sport is about setting some rules and seeing how teams go about winning the match under them. If the resulting sport is not what you want, CHANGE THE RULES. Seriously rugby union, if you’re desperate for tries get rid of drop goals, give free kicks for all technical infringements and shift the defence back ten yards from every ruck. Then sit back and enjoy.

Look, you’re going to have to stop having good ideas. You’ll just end up all frustrated and twitchy and grumpy when ICC set up a committee to look into the idea with a remit to report at some point during the next millennium or two.